Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2.5 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

I know Bill Bremmer advocates using Contiguous Major thirds to set a good start to an equal temperament octave, and I started using it with the 4:5 ratios years ago, but I have added a bit of my own to this powerful procedure. In this procedure, there is no need to know what 4:5 sounds like, often a stumbling block for my students.

This video also shows a visual demonstration using pen and paper. The demonstration shows why the lower skeleton is so accurate at tuning C#4. Some of my more advanced students who use this procedure, have asked me why it is so accurate. The visual demonstration helps to explain.

In the lower skeleton, when you say the progression must be for example 6, 8, 10. Or 8,8,8. Or 7,8,9. Or 9,8,7. Or 11, 8, 5. You are speaking of an arithmetic progression. This is incorrect. That produces an error in the tuning of C#4.

In ET all progressions are geometrical. It's the ratio of the frequences which is constant, not their difference.

I suggest that next time you find yourself at a PTG convention, either regional or national, that you check out the tuning pedagogy of Jack Stebbins and/or Rick Baldassin.

It strikes me that the Mark Cerisano "Skeleton" is the same as "Jack's Stack" is the same as "The Baldassin/Sanderson Temperament" sequence.

Jack Stebbins has been teaching a course for years called "Let the Piano Tell You", which uses the same technique of triangulating comparative beat speeds of stacked contiguous major thirds balanced against octaves. The difference being that Jack includes C#3 in the sequence. The rationale is that it is easier for beginning tuners to hear/compare beat speeds in the range of 5:7:9 rather than beat speeds of 9:11:13. The technique is the same as yours however - mashing the C#s and the Fs around using the comparative beat speeds of the major thirds while maintaining octaves until a nice stack of increasing contiguous major thirds and clean octaves is reached.

Baldassin, in his class, goes even further and includes A2 in the sequence. I think his intention is to introduce the ~6:3 A2/A3 octave and the ~4:2 A3/A4 octave at the same time as getting the stack of thirds to increase in beat speed. Slightly more complicated, but in the end, it's the same.

In the lower skeleton, when you say the progression must be for example 6, 8, 10. Or 8,8,8. Or 7,8,9. Or 9,8,7. Or 11, 8, 5. You are speaking of an arithmetic progression. This is incorrect. That produces an error in the tuning of C#4.

In ET all progressions are geometrical. It's the ratio of the frequences which is constant, not their difference.

Rafael, it seems like you are being overly pedantic just to pick an argument.

Mark is not suggesting that the tuning progression must be arithmetic, but rather, to change evenly as a means towards achieving the goal. "Evenly" is only an approximation and it is not necessary to talk about exact arithmetic or geometric at this stage.

The intent to establish a systematic method is much better than just flapping around randomly back and forth to get progressive CM3rds, which most likely usually happns.

Mark is doing his best to present a systematic way of undertaking a difficult tuning task for students. Do you have a method that would help students to get a reasonable CM3rd sequence?

Chris S. Thanks for the comment. I read about Stebbins' method, but the C#3 he uses involves a lot of temporary settings, AFAIK.

The real accuracy in this method happens after the skeleton. It starts with setting D4 so that F3D4 bisects F3A3 and A3C#4 and continues like that for the whole temperament, windows getting smaller and smaller as you go along.

But the bisection is not an arithmetic difference bisection. Its an aural one. For example, when you try to fit the three speeds changing evenly, and create daylight between them, they may sound even, but in order for you to hear the differences, you must create arithmetically uneven speeds. That's how the log scale works. I.e. the speeds wouldn't be 7,8,9 (those are just examples anyway), it would work out more like 7.2, 8, and 9.4. The human ear will tell you the difference between 7.2 and 8 is the same as 8 and 9.4, for example. (But the method doesn't use numbers)

In the lower skeleton, when you say the progression must be for example 6, 8, 10. Or 8,8,8. Or 7,8,9. Or 9,8,7. Or 11, 8, 5. You are speaking of an arithmetic progression. This is incorrect. That produces an error in the tuning of C#4.

In ET all progressions are geometrical. It's the ratio of the frequences which is constant, not their difference.

Rafael, it seems like you are being overly pedantic just to pick an argument.

Mark is not suggesting that the tuning progression must be arithmetic, but rather, to change evenly as a means towards achieving the goal. "Evenly" is only an approximation and it is not necessary to talk about exact arithmetic or geometric at this stage.

The intent to establish a systematic method is much better than just flapping around randomly back and forth to get progressive CM3rds, which most likely usually happns.

Mark is doing his best to present a systematic way of undertaking a difficult tuning task for students. Do you have a method that would help students to get a reasonable CM3rd sequence?

Chris Leslie,

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to share true knowledge, compared to the vague and erroneous descriptions given by Mark Cerisano.

Of course I have a better way to present a systematic way of undertaking a "difficult" (as you say) task for students.

Here it is. And by following this accurate and professional method you'll discover that this is not so difficult for students:

The intent to establish a systematic method is much better than just flapping around randomly back and forth to get progressive CM3rds, which most likely usually happns.

Is that the way you tune?

If it is then I suggest you to study the document of Bill Bremmer. There you'll find a systematic and accurate way of tuning the CM3s, from F3 up to A4. With no guesses, no "back and forth", no fictious "incredible accuracy" as Mark promises and never demonstrates.

Originally Posted By: Chris Leslie

Mark is not suggesting that...Mark is doing his best to present a ...

So now you know what Mark is trying to do...

Mark has said what he said, no less, no more. And all I did, was to follow his instructions, and they lead to an error of one cent in the tuning of C#4.

If you follow Bremmer's instructions you won't get to such a big error.

And if one is invited to guess what Mark suggests or tries to do, I'll tlell you what I honestly think:

The more I read his posts, the more I have the impression that Mark is using the Piano World Forums (plural) to make selfpromotion.

He's not interested in discussing technical aspects of tuning. Each time I've tried to talk with him he gives me the same disgusting answer: Mine is better than yours, I know more than you and the like... or even worst, he denies what he previously said, as he did with the 20 hours courses.

To my eyes his only interest is in showing what he does and how he does and to make it public!

I wonder if this the purpose of this Forums. I believe there are fees to pay to make advertising in PW.

Do you know that Mark has been banned from PW for 2 weeks, if my memory doensn't fail, for this very reason?

And he continues to make post after post showing his way of doing. And refusing to accept arguments against what he does.He sells tuning courses 20 hours long and he argues that it is possible to teach tuning in 20 hours with his marvelous methods.

The video of the Tuneable filter to hear beats, is erroneous as he was hearing A6 and he said he was hearing A5. The beat rate is twice as much as he says. And he presents it as an accurate way to sensibilize students to beat rate recognition!

That is not professional.

If he makes a mistake, the less he can do is correct it and apologize.

In this very thread he announces he knows the Bremmer's method and he says he has "added a bit of his own" to supress a "stumbling block for his students".

and all he does is to introduce vague and inaccurate instructions which lead to error.

Mark is obviously promoting himself, but so is every other technician who posts his profession, company name, and web address.

I have to commend Mark for his clear and upbeat presentations. This is the third of his videos that I've watched and all have offered practical and useful information.

I do understand someone becoming annoyed when, instead of saying, " This is how I use the system," Mark seems to be taking credit for inventing something which was developed over 200 yrs ago.

Besides promoting himself, Mark is also promoting the craft of piano technology. Something I think technicians in the forum do appreciate and something I wish I could do more of.

I can still hear my uncle Bill saying over and over to me, "Lady Luck favors those who try."

Enjoy

_________________________
"Imagine it in all its primatic colorings, its counterpart in our souls - our souls that are great pianos whose strings, of honey and of steel, the divisions of the rainbow set twanging, loosing on the air great novels of adventure!" - William Carlos Williams

Hi Mark~~I just watched your video. I commend you in your efforts in wanting to help folks learn to tune pianos. It's a huge undertaking.

I'm going to free-associate here, so hopefully you'll understand some of my confusion and suggestions and I hope you don't take what I say as being out of line.

I completed nearly 300 tunings before I was injured, so no doubt I developed some good habits and bad. Fortunately, I took some good advice early on and my customers were pretty happy with my work. I'm on the sidelines now.

Now, while on the topic of tuning, it might be a good idea for you to teach students how to replace strings on their practice piano, especially with the high number of adjustments needed to render a string using your method of tuning-detuning unisons, then going back an forth adjusting intervals. Beginners might not have the degree of body control you do and many will probably have older pianos with more brittle strings. Learning to replace strings is an invaluable skill for a tuner anyway.

It appears in your video you are you assuming your students understand how a 6:3 and a 4:2 octave is defined and what it sounds like? You don't explain how to create or do checks on either of them, but you use the term "window".

You also say that the F3-A3 beat speed is not important at the onset, but you continue to talk about beat speeds between intervals and demonstrate how important they are throughout the video. You talk about how accurate your method is, but don't demonstrate it on your piano with a ready-to-expand temperament. Maybe you should simply lay down the bearings using your method from start to finish, while using a text overlay describing exactly what you are doing. You show folks how some of it is done, but you don't actually do it yourself. Tune the temperament, then an octave above and below it to show how accurate and simple it is.

You talk about intervals increasing by one beat per second, but one or both unisons in your example beats more or less at one beat per second. That is wildly difficult to follow. It's impossible for me to hear if an octave is clean (4:2, 6:3 etc) if the unisons are beating themselves.

Also, I hear unisons that are wildly out as you are attempting to demonstrate beat progressions. You go back and get a somewhat solid unison, but then knock it out again when you are adjusting beats between the intervals you are attempting to create. It is very confusing. You're doing two things at once, both of which require a high level of concentration and body control. I am not sure how a beginner watching will benefit from it.

It seems that getting a student to hear and control fast beating intervals to set a temperament while at the same time tuning and detuning unisons might create some confusion.

To set a temperament, you should perhaps avoid unison tuning and detuning at the same time. I perceive it as counter-productive. I am sure an advanced piano technician can pretty much get away with such a method if needed, but not a beginner. I would think one can't hear the piano's temperament if the unisons are not solid.

You say your Double String unison method forces you to produce clean unisons, but they don't exist in your video and it makes listening to fast intervals, including the two demonstrated solid octaves impossible to hear.

Sorry if I am overly repetitive and/or missing something here, but this video seems to create more confusion than less. I'd recommend you redo it for better clarification.

No one need to pat Mark Cerisano, RPT, on the back--I don't think that is what he is after. I understand that he always seem to be self-promotiony, but I think maybe he's an upbeat person, who cares about piano technology, and really wants to help make things better. At least he is trying something, what are the rest of you doing?

And then he sincerely asks us for feedback so that he can continue to improve--which he is (i.e., the videos are getting better). Mark Cerisano, RPT, I applaud your efforts, appreciate your improvements, and look forward to more.

It might be productive to talk about the trigger words/phrases that are inflaming so many people here. I don't know what they all are, so they will need to come from the people that they actually bother, but from what I've gleaned: Mark Cerisano, RPT (i.e., they don't like seeing/hearing your name so often); anything that indicates you've done or developed something (e.g., "my" methodology)--it comes across like you are trademarking something that is "yours"; they don't like being reminded that you have students. (i.e., avoid that term whenever possible); they don't really want to know your experiences and what justifies your approach--just do it, be yourself, and don't feel like you need to justify your statements.

People: if you have a problem with his words, tell him now--so he can modify the approach--or hold your peace and stop blaming him for it.

I have long advocated the use of open string unisons, especially in the learning process: it forces the brain to listen and think differently! The one-mute tuners of the past were not minimalists, they heard what they were doing, and it was resonant/consonant.

I don't know how many technicians here have learned to hear through a not-absoultly-perfect union trichords to observe the "beat rates." This is because 'beat counters' listen more to the decay/sustain, while 'beat feelers' use more of the attack/hold to make their assessment. Open string tunings require the use of both observations simultaneously: the attack/hold for the temperament and the decay/sustain for the unison quality. If you are communicating with technicians here that don't possess both kinds of listening skills--especially the ones that can't tune via the attack--they are always going to be confused by the sound and think it confusing. There is nothing much you can do about that unless they take the time to learn to listen.

I have long advocated the use of open string unisons, especially in the learning process: it forces the brain to listen and think differently! The one-mute tuners of the past were not minimalists, they heard what they were doing, and it was resonant/consonant.

I don't know how many technicians here have learned to hear through a not-absoultly-perfect union trichords to observe the "beat rates." This is because 'beat counters' listen more to the decay/sustain, while 'beat feelers' use more of the attack/hold to make their assessment. Open string tunings require the use of both observations simultaneously: the attack/hold for the temperament and the decay/sustain for the unison quality. If you are communicating with technicians here that don't possess both kinds of listening skills--especially the ones that can't tune via the attack--they are always going to be confused by the sound and think it confusing. There is nothing much you can do about that unless they take the time to learn to listen.

When unisons are not clean, the beat speeds produced by an RBI with that unison can still be heard, but it "rides" on the roll of the unison. We can learn to listen past that, but also recognize it when it occurs so that we can find and fix unisons that have drifted.

Now, while on the topic of tuning, it might be a good idea for you to teach students how to replace strings on their practice piano.

Absolutely. It's my next task.

Originally Posted By: Inlanding

It appears in your video you are you assuming your students understand how a 6:3 and a 4:2 octave is defined and what it sounds like? You don't explain how to create or do checks on either of them, but you use the term "window".

Another great idea for a video.

Originally Posted By: Inlanding

You also say that the F3-A3 beat speed is not important at the onset, but you continue to talk about beat speeds between intervals and demonstrate how important they are throughout the video.

Beat speed difference sensitivity is very important. F3A3 = 7bps is not, because the skeleton will set it according to the piano.

Originally Posted By: Inlanding

You talk about how accurate your method is, but don't demonstrate it on your piano with a ready-to-expand temperament. Maybe you should simply lay down the bearings using your method from start to finish, while using a text overlay describing exactly what you are doing. You show folks how some of it is done, but you don't actually do it yourself. Tune the temperament, then an octave above and below it to show how accurate and simple it is.

It's a task but I did do it to a temperament I did at regular speed, too fast for many to follow. That was a bad idea.

Now that's three videos on my list. I have probably 50 floating around in my head, so thank you for helping me figure out which are more important.

Originally Posted By: Inlanding

You talk about intervals increasing by one beat per second, but one or both unisons in your example beats more or less at one beat per second. That is wildly difficult to follow. It's impossible for me to hear if an octave is clean (4:2, 6:3 etc) if the unisons are beating themselves.

Could you be more specific? Which video? What time?

Originally Posted By: Inlanding

Also, I hear unisons that are wildly out as you are attempting to demonstrate beat progressions. You go back and get a somewhat solid unison, but then knock it out again when you are adjusting beats between the intervals you are attempting to create. It is very confusing. You're doing two things at once, both of which require a high level of concentration and body control. I am not sure how a beginner watching will benefit from it.

Yes, they will not. The method is meant to be used. It is in the using that the student improves.

Beating unisons still produce audible beats with RBI, they're just not as easy to hear. More incentive for students to clean them up.

Originally Posted By: Inlanding

It seems that getting a student to hear and control fast beating intervals to set a temperament while at the same time tuning and detuning unisons might create some confusion.

We're "stepping" the pitch along. Once they get that, it becomes second nature.

Originally Posted By: Inlanding

To set a temperament, you should perhaps avoid unison tuning and detuning at the same time. I perceive it as counter-productive. I am sure an advanced piano technician can pretty much get away with such a method if needed, but not a beginner.

It's not easy to teach unisons in a short course. Unisons are so important. Sure, it's ok to say "just make sure you practice getting good unisons", but DSU forces the student to learn how to create clean unisons right away. Learning to tune a piano is painful. The DSU method is front loaded with pain.

Originally Posted By: Inlanding

I would think one can't hear the piano's temperament if the unisons are not solid.[/quote ]Exactly! Inherent motivation.

[quote=Inlanding]

You say your Double String unison method forces you to produce clean unisons, but they don't exist in your video and it makes listening to fast intervals, including the two demonstrated solid octaves impossible to hear.

Again, please list the specific example. Video and time please. That would be very helpful.

Originally Posted By: Inlanding

Sorry if I am overly repetitive and/or missing something here, but this video seems to create more confusion than less. I'd recommend you redo it for better clarification.

I will not disagree. If I can imagine a better way, I'll do it. Perhaps it could be shorter.

I don’t hear any solid unisons in this (your) thread's video. What do you mean by the, "DSU method is front loaded with pain", or "Exactly, Inherent motivation".

My experience is that learning piano care and learning to tune a piano is more of an iterative process.

My suggestion is to separate out the topic of practicing unisons from the topic of skeleton interval setting, i.e., not mixing the two.

As you requested, here are the times - the video is the one you originally placed in this thread.

C#4 at :39 secondsF3 at 1:11You say, F3 - F4 octave maybe wide 4:2, maybe narrow 6:3 @ 1:55 — both unisons are not quiet - they beat (or roll). If you instead used a single string, it’d be much easier to hear intervals in your skeleton system and so would it be in hearing clean octaves.

You say, “Each one (interval) changing by one beat per second” at 2:47 - the unisons are not solid

You say, "That is why the C# is precise” @ 3:23, then you lower the C# again at 3:44. When exactly is it precise in the sequence you are demonstrating?You lower two strings of C# into a unison that is beating @ 3:51, then raise it again at 4:06 - how do you know it is 8 beats from A3?You lower F4 in a unison that beats @ 5:27"Double String unisons method requires clean unisons" @ 8:17 to 8:28 “The most important thing in a piano tuning”. Maybe you are not using exactly your DSU method in this video?

Unisons must be clean. In any other method other than open unison, the tuner can leave the unisons not clean. In open unison you have a longer time with them to find the drifters.

Also, for beginners, if they are not close to clean, the beats will be very difficult to hear. They are forced to work on unisons before the other stuff; front loading.

With the mute strip, you can leave unisons unstable and not clean, but you'll get call backs; back loading.

"Exactly, inherent motivation" meant, if you want to hear the temperament you need solid unisons. Just like you said. However, with rolling unisons, RBI can still be heard. But the P4 ladder must increase slightly and evenly in colour in ET, and that will not be easy to hear if the unisons roll. The P4 ladder is my last test. I consider it the most sensitive test for ET.

"My suggestion is to separate out the topic of practicing unisons from the topic of skeleton interval setting, i.e., not mixing the two." - The two weren't mixed intentionally. The video was about the skeleton, the DSU was just the way it was tuned. It can be done any way. I agree with you though; maybe I should make another video using the mute strip.

Here are my comments concerning the unisons:

C#4 at :39 seconds - this was before the tuning. Piano wasn't tuned. I was just showing the notes.

F3 at 1:11 - distortion.

1:55 - Those are some pretty slow rolls. Many tuners tune unisons like that. But rolling is acceptable when setting RBI, (carrier wave) not when checking octave directly. The test is, when the octave is in the window, there should be no rolling. If there is, it's coming from a unison.

2:47 - (FYI, don't take the numbers literally) - This was a visual demonstration of how the relationships work, not an aural demonstration; I hadn't tuned the C#4 or F4 yet.

3:23 - C# had not been tuned yet. At this point I began the "fitting".

3:44 - At 3:33 I set C#4 based on the previous judgement, but the speeds came out as Fast/Fast/Pure; criteria for lowering C#4.

"When exactly is it precise in the sequence you are demonstrating?" 6:34. Accuracy is dependant on how close F3A3 is to the final setting. But you can reiterate, like I did. I set F3A3 way off on purpose, to show how it works even when F3 is not good.

3:51 - Ya, that could have been better, but I did tweak it before I moved on.

4:06 - the goal is NOT 8bps, that was an arbitrary number used for illustration. The goal is smoothly changing beat speeds. At 3:55, the beats test out as Fast/Slow/Slow; NOT evenly changing. This test proves C#4 is flat. Because of where F3 was set, the goal, at this point, looks to be Fast/Med/Slow. (And since I tuned F3 flat on purpose, this F/M/S progression would be expected.)

5:27 Yes, I hear that.

8:17 to 8:28 - Yes, this seems to be a contradiction. But I still maintain it is beneficial for beginners. Just for them to get less than 1bps is a challenge, and >1bps makes hearing RBI from those kind of unisons impossible.

I will modify my claim to be "Double String Unison method requires close unisons (<1bps) when testing RBI, and clean unisons when expecting clean octaves."

I hope that helps.

I am open to creating another video using the mute strip if you think that would be more accessible.

This is my weakness, producing content that is accessible. I know that. That is the main reason why I post them on PW. Self-promotion is a much smaller part of it than it used to be. I don't get much business from PW, but what I do get, which is incredibly more valuable, are posts like yours.

I know Bill Bremmer advocates using Contiguous Major thirds to set a good start to an equal temperament octave, and I started using it with the 4:5 ratios years ago, but I have added a bit of my own to this powerful procedure. In this procedure, there is no need to know what 4:5 sounds like, often a stumbling block for my students.

This video also shows a visual demonstration using pen and paper. The demonstration shows why the lower skeleton is so accurate at tuning C#4. Some of my more advanced students who use this procedure, have asked me why it is so accurate. The visual demonstration helps to explain.

I like it. It's different than Bill Bremmer's method which is single string based. When you have to raise a string a bit on a single string you sort of "work in the dark", esp. when the beats are not so clear, but with the DSU technique you can calibrate you in(or de-)crements better.

Polite, constructive criticism: It seems the video could be condensed into 1/3 time. So the students would have to spend 2/3 less time listening, but you'd have to spend 50 times longer making and editing the video. Counter argument: if the students hear your "too long" video they get insight into what you are thinking when making the video. Matter of teaching style.

Mark Cerisano, RPT, the videos are improving, but I still agree with DoelKees re:video editing and length. Also, forget about "fancy" transitions.

Perhaps you might first decide what you want to convey and then break it down into segments. Record each segment multiple times until you get your point across in a meaningful way that can be edited together. If you try to do a script, it will probably get boring, but if you do multiple takes, you should start to notice redundancies and unnecessary speech patterns.

re: unprofessional garage junkThis was one of the first things that caught my eye. If you were to put up a clean/blank screen, then I think my eye would be more draw to the dirtiness/disgustingness of your piano. <-----that you really SHOULD clean-up!! I would suggest keeping the rest of the room as is--it is your natural environment that you apparently feel comfortable in, so use that to your advantage--instead consider addressing the issue with better lighting control. If you are going to make videos, you really need better lighting anyway. I'd go for a few led panels with adjustable temperatures, barn doors, and a way to diffuse the light. Light up yourself and your area, not the clutter in the background. The video will start to look like it has a better resolution with appropriate lighting. A better microphone is needed, and then a nicer camera with a wider lens so that you can record more appropriately in that small space.

The method is inaccurate and this should be stated in the video, saying that it can be used for setting rough approximate M3rds. Sorry I really can't say contiguous, but some M3rds increasing in speed.

It should also be noted in the video that other accurate methods for setting contiguous M3rds should be used for fine tuning.

Very good post. I am sorry to hear about your injury and wish you a full recovery.

HW

Herr Weiss~~ thank you for your kind words! It's a very long work-in-progress that takes interminable amounts of patience.

Mark,Look forward to your cleaned up videos and clean unisons. It seems that if you are emphasizing how clean unisons need / should be, then the onus is on you to demonstrate it by making them as perfect as you can at every step. As well, modeling the behaviors you want to teach gives your students confidence in you on so many levels. Glad others were willing to give you specific and tangible suggestions.

If you are still going to do a video on your way of using Contiguous Thirds, maybe do one using single strings, then duplicate the video using your DSU style. Learning/keeping really solid fundamentals early on carry over into developing a larger, more sophisticated skill-set.

Glad to see you are open-minded with your evolving educational website development.

Mark is obviously promoting himself, but so is every other technician who posts his profession, company name, and web address.

Not me! Since 2006 I have not made a single customer in PW.

When I came first to this forum, I signed as GADZAR. No name, no profession, no link to my web site. My only interest here was, and still is, to learn from others and share my knowledge with others. Then I have read this post on the Piano Forum:

Are You A Piano Industry Professional?Do You Work In The Piano Industry?Or... Were You Recently Associated With The Piano Industry?Are You, or Were You a... Piano Dealer, Tuner/Technician/Rebuilder, Teacher, Sales Person, Manufacturer/Manufacturer's Rep, Distributor, Wholesaler, Retailer, Manager, Consultant, Supplier, Importer/Exporter?

If you answered yes to any of the above, pleaseIdentify your affiliation with the piano business in your signature!...If you are or were a piano industry professional, please identify yourself as such so people will know the source of your "expertise"....If you consider yourself to be a professional, please act like one! If you just can't resist promoting yourself or your business, or you think bashing your competitors and/or their products is the way to do business, you will likely find yourself banned from the forums....Stop the Self-Promotion!It is NOT ACCEPTABLE for you to create posts thinly disguised as an innocent discussion when in fact they are nothing more than a promotion for your business....Nor should you be directing your customers here for the sole purpose of touting how wonderful you are....Now for what we do consider self-promotion:...If you're in the business and you continually create posts to talk about your business, you're self-promoting....Piano Industry Professional Advertising Options:

If you would like to promote your business on Piano World, check out our Professional Advertising options.Advertising on Piano World works. We deliver high volume targeted traffic. Click the link above for more details.

That's why I added my profession and a link to my web site, but I have never made selfpromotion!

Now, I ask you to see the threads Mark Cerisano has created this last days:

With all due respect to Mr. Reblitz, I do not feel that his method is very accurate or easy to learn. Search PW for "skeleton" method. It relies on listening to the piano to try and determine if 7, 8, and 9, is appropriate.

For your specific question, yes, F3A3 beats at A6. Here are some more coincidental partial formula:

As always he tries to invalidate what others do and to selfpromote himself.

And worst of all: he's wrong in what he says to beginners who do not even notice the errors he makes!

F3A3 beats at A5 not A6.

The student was asking where to hear the beats at. He asked specifically if he must hear at 880 hz, and if this was A6.

Originally Posted By: JamietheMan

I've been using the Reblitz text to try teach myself how to tune, and have been going through the exercises leading up to tuning the temperament in chapter 7. I understand the theory of frequencies and coincidental partials. I'm now trying to hear 7, 8, and 9 beats per second when tuning F33-A37, F33-D42. and A#38-D42 respectively. If I'm hearing the beats correctly, should I be hearing them at the tone of the coincidental partial? For example, F33 and A37 "meet" at 880.000 Hz and 873.070 Hz respectfully. 880 is A6 (A61 I believe?). So should the 7 bps be sounding around the pitch of A6?

880 hz is A5

not A6 as Mark answered to the student. He made the same error in his video of the Tuneable filter, I wonder if in fact he thinks F3A3 beats are to be heard at A6 instead of A5?

BTW: Students?

Yes! I guess that is how Mark sees the posters in PW. Like potential students for his courses.

Originally Posted By: Mark Cerisano, RPT

I was just reading over some posts by students who were looking for ways to make tuning the temperament easier.

Who? Which posts? Where? Isn't it the posts of his students, in his web site?

I know no more accurate sequence than the Sanderson-Baldassin sequence, tuning the CM3s as indicated by Bill Bremmer. In this sequence there are no guesses and no arbitrary beat rates, it follows strictly the "let the piano tell you" approach of Stebbins.

Of course it requires a good sensitivity of the different beat rates in major thirds and fourths.

But I don't know a sequence that can produce accuracy without having that sensitivity.

Your lower skeleton and upper skeleton are not other than setting the contiguous major thirds from F3 to A4, just as in all CM3s sequences. And your lower skeleton is not accurate enough as we can see in your video when, after tuning the lower skeleton, you had to tweak C#4 to have even M3s in the upper skeleton.

What gives the accuracy in such a sequence is the correct appreciation and sensitivity to tune an even geometical progression of major thirds.

But an even progression of CM3s is not enough to ET. You must have also good fourths. This is the strongest point of the Sanderson-Baldassin sequence. It ensures also the correct tempering of the fourths. It lets the piano tell you the correct size of M3s and P4s.

I've never been one to argue about tuning sequences--I've never understood why people do that. They are all different ways of hearing something. When I come across a different different sequence--especially when it exercises a different listening skill--I play with it for awhile and learn to hear it THAT way.

They all are accurate, if one learns what to listen for. Why not take the time to learn a different way of listening/thinking? You will be a better tuner for it.

While you are at it, please learn to listen THOROUGH less-than-perfect unisons. That, above all else, will make you a better tuner. When two tuners can tune simultaneously on the same piano, with earplugs in, and a radio in the background, you are "listening" in the right way. <---obviously, this is more of a pitch-raise situation.

The C#4 was not accurate after the first attempt due to how far off I tuned F3 initially. I said that already. But it was easy to hear once F3 was closer. Baldessin's and Bremmer's methods are succeptable to the same weakness.

CM3 are not as accurate as bisecting the two lower CM3; F3A3 < F3D4 < A3C#4 for example, but generally more accurate than some methods used for the other notes. The White Anchor (F3 G3 A3 C4 D4) for example can have cancelling errors in the P4's from A3 to F3.

Setting RBI to bisect windows, instead of just putting the note somewhere between speeds is an extremely accurate method.

A good ET will exhibit a gradual increase in colour of the P4's from F3A#3 to C4F4. This is a good final test.

C#4 was not accurate enough! Your lower skeleton serves only as a way to make a rough approximation. Just as any other method you can imagine. But you say this is a more accurate way of tuning CM3s and you do not prove it. Bisection comes after and you have not said what it is.

When you corrected C#4 in your video, you were only judging the even progression of M3s in the upper skeleton. That's what gives you the right tuning for C#4 not the lower skeleton.

PS When you post your method here, you are talking to experienced tuners who know well, maybe better than you, what you are talking about. We are not like your students who know very little or nothing about tuning and who will accept all you say without questioning it.

That you speak of a superior DSU technique and you make a video where all unisons are rolling?

That you speak of a more accurate way of tuning C#4 with your lower skeleton, but in your video you have to retune it later by the usual even beat rate progression of M3s procedure?

And I'll speak for myself (Bill Bremmer, Isaac Oleg, Kent Swafford, and other experienced tuners here can speak for themselves, but I doubt they waste their time...): Yes, I am an experienced tuner. I tune pianos for a living. I use the sequences I've mentioned in this thread for tuning pianos, every day.

And when I see in this forum an RPT talking about a more accurate sequence to tune the CM3s, I am interested. But your method is deceiving, it is no more accurate than what I've studied for years. It works indeed. It works fine, but it is not more accurate that the others, as you claim!

Your behavior is all but professional as it would be expected from an RPT.

Look at yourself:

Originally Posted By: Mark Cerisano, RPT

Originally Posted By: Gadzar

Don't forget ghost tones which are the equivalent of your equalization in Audacity, you hear only the coincident partials beating.

They don't work and are overrated. The top note needs to be accurately tuned in order to excite the partials of each interval note.

So when I advise you to use ghost tones to teach your students to hear beats you say they don't work!

But, what about this earlier post of yours in another thread (highlights are mine):

Originally Posted By: Mark Cerisano, RPT

I was just reading over some posts by students who were looking for ways to make tuning the temperament easier.

Basically, the problem was that, although most techs use a healthy dose of thirds/sixths and fourths/fifths to tune a temperament, beginners like to use fourths/fifths because it is easier for them to hear when the intervals do not sound right, while the thirds/sixths beating is too difficult.

Many techs however, advocate the use of thirds/sixths for the purpose of producing more accuracy in tuning.

It is true, however, that they are harder to hear for many students.

With that in mind, I would like to share some tricks I used when starting out, that helped me to more easily hear the beats of thirds/sixths, sometimes called Rapid Beating Intervals, or RBI's.

1. Know Where the Coincidental Partial Is....2. GhostingSometimes this works, and when it does, it is awesome. Most of the time, it doesn't work as well as we would like.Slowly press down the interval notes, thereby lifting the dampers, and allowing the interval strings to be excited by the ghost note.Attack the note that corresponds to the coincidental partial, with a loud ff staccato.If the coincidental partials of each interval note are close to the frequency of the note you played staccato, then each partial should ring, and if they are not the same frequency, the beats will be heard.

This sometimes works well when accompanied by playing the interval mf.Play the interval. Let it be heard, and then strike the coincidental partial loud and short. Sometimes, it is just enough to bring out the beating when strict ghosting doesn't.

3. Focus the Ear....

4. Filter Unwanted Frequencies....

5. Know What the Beat Sounds Like....

One analogy that I use to describe the path to hearing beats easier is a theatre curtain analogy.

The beats are like objects behind a theatre curtain, and we are sitting in the audience, trying to see what's behind the curtain.

When we start trying to see those objects, the curtain is quite opaque, and while there are moments of translucence, most of the time we are just staring at velvet.

As a tuner practices trying to hear beats, the curtain begins to get thinner, and the moments of translucence last longer.

After years of experience, the curtain is virtually transparent.

By using some of the techniques I describe above, you may be able to achieve transparency sooner, rather than later.

Good luck.

So, do ghost tones work or not?

Ah! I see: if Mark Cerisano says it, then they work. But, if this is another tech that says it, then they do not work and Mark has a better way to do this!

And I can continue to show how you say something in one post and then you say the contrary in another one, to invalidate what another person says, like the story about the student you taught to tune pianos in 20 hours to a level of passing the PTG exam.

What I don't understand about Mr Cerisano is that in one hand he asks for respect from the tuning community ("be nice") BUT in his site 'How to tune pianos'- Archived (under- current-state-of-piano-tuning)- there is a blog titled I've been banned.

In it he writes and I quote: "I've even been insulted and harassed by another technician who claims to be an expert teacher and spends most of his time bashing people who don't agree with his ideas".

We all know who is referring to AND this is unacceptable!!This is a form of defamation called libel.I strongly advice that the best thing to do is to delete such a false, totally subjective statement.

22. What do I do if I have a complaint about a member’s business practices? Members are expected to follow the Code of Ethics and Code of Professional Conduct. They are what make the PTG a respected leader in the industry. On the rare occasion that a member acts in an unprofessional manner, PTG does have a disciplinary process in place. (See the Disciplinary Code in the PTG Bylaws for more information.)

Section D – Members’ Rights Committee Procedures The following is the form by which proceedings are initiated: 1. A member, group of members or chapter of the Piano Technicians Guild may submit a formal written complaint of professional misconduct to the Chairman of the Members’ Rights Committee, and to the accused.

It is pathetic to see someone taking a step back in his words and actions, by deleting his post and blogs without apologizing, without having the courage to recognize what he did and assume his responsabilities.

The less we expect from a professional is ethics and honor.

IMO, Mark Cerisano shouldn't be RPT. It's not only a matter of knowledge and competence, professionalism and ethics are also required.

Gadzar et al., what is your objective? Do you want to stop Mark Cerisano RPT from teaching online? Are you trying to ensure his future students know that he is a fraud? Are you trying to break his resolve? I don't understand. This all seem so personal. There a long history of this back-and-forth. What gives?

Who is the expert teacher that spends most of his time bashing people who don't agree with his ideas?

If this is not a personal attack, then what exactly are the professional issues that ya'll have with him? Why all the writing about the PTG and ethics? He looks to be conducting online tuning tutoring secessions. Is that what you object to?!? I really do not understand.

Ya'll realise he can teach whatever and however he wants, right? If he believed it was advantageous to play the notes with the feet, so that one had two hands to move the mutes and tune the string, then there is nothing stopping him from doing that.

Gadzar, you want me to ask Mark Cerisano, RPT why YOU, et al., seem to be so harsh towards him?!? I've been reading this back-and-forth hostility over numerous threads; it never seems to come to a rest. Perhaps you are justified, I don't know...I don't understand what this is all about.

What exactly do you want from him? You seem not to be happy that he exists...do you really want him to change THAT!?!

I agree that the constant self-promotion is irritating and distracting. Moreover, I think that it is simply not necessary. The fact that he is publicly visible and writing on forums like this, ensures that people will seek him out. I don't believe any additional self-promotion will result in any more students. Commercialism is not attractive, especially in an artistic endeavour. In fact, I think it is counterproductive to what he is trying to achieve. But that is just me, and what I think. Mark Cerisano, RPT must make his own choices.

For the health and betterment of the piano industry, I want to see Mark Cerisano, RPT continue making videos and posting them online for people to learn (i.e., for free). If he also wants to conduct live tuning tutorials for a fee, that's cool too...

If it is a professional issue, I've failed to identify it. Would you mind please helping me understand? I don't do what Mark Cerisano, RPT does (i.e., I would do it differently), but that doesn't mean I can't see the benefits of what he is doing.

I have no hidden agenda. I have said here all I had to say. There is nothing more to look for. If you want to know what is happening all you have to do is to read this thread and the A4 thread.

If, and when, I have something to say about you or to you, I do it in front of you and directly to you!

I have never written nothing about you or anyone else in my web site, which is destined to buy and sell pianos and to get pianos to tune, repair, regulate and move. I will never put there something about you or any other poster of PW.

I never post something I do not believe in! I have never posted one thing in a thread and then the contrary in another thread.

When I've been proven wrong, I have accepted it and I have apologized.

My sense of honor and ethics is greater than my ego.

If I say I agree or not with something, it's because I agree or disagree and not because of trying to seduce customers.

I've never PM'd someone to enroll him in my privated businesses.

You will never see me denying what I have previously said.

If I post a video here, I accept the critics as they come and try to learn from my fails.

Just for fun I computed the theoretical error in setting C#4 based on tuning a perfect geometric progression of beatrates F3A3C#4F4, with F3 guessed, which is the "lower skeleton" part of Mark's method.

Below a plot of the error in C#4 as a function of the bps of F3A3. Interestingly it is always flat, and the error remains below 1 cent when F3A3 is between 4 and 10 bps.

Thanks Kees. When you say geometric, are you creating 7,8,9 type relationships, preserving the arithmetic difference? Because I've said a few times already that I'm convinced that this type of relationship would not be the goal. For the human ear, 8 to 9 sounds closer than 7 to 8 so the sensitive tuner would more likely tune something like 7, <8, >9, and hear it as evenly changing. Does that lower the error?

I like how you confirm what else I said, namely my far off F3 on purpose created more uncertainty in C#4 due to trying to hear fast beats at the bottom or the top, depending on which way F3 was off. An insight into perhaps why Jack Stebbins uses beat matching to set F3; no arbitrarily fast beats.

Is the zero error created when all the speeds are equal? That would make sense since the arithmetic and logarithmic differences are the same at zero. And it looks like that is occurring slightly above 7. Isn't 6.9bps the theoretical for F3A3 in ET? That would make sense.

Mark, geometric progression means that the beat rate ratio of A3C#4 and F3A3 is the same as the beat rate ratio of C#4F4 and A3C#4 and the same as the beat rate ratio of F4A4 and C#4F4.Zero error when F3A3=6.9, look closer.

Kees, so a larger error of F3 causes a smaller error in C#4 in the lower skeleton with fixed A3-A4 and F3-F4 octaves. Therefore, shouldn't the same effect happen with the F4 if the upper skeleton is treated the same, and thus further refinement of the sequence? Then, re-iterate the lower skeleton with a refined F3-F4 position as a means to converge towards the CM3 goal?

Kees, so a larger error of F3 causes a smaller error in C#4 in the lower skeleton with fixed A3-A4 and F3-F4 octaves. Therefore, shouldn't the same effect happen with the F4 if the upper skeleton is treated the same, and thus further refinement of the sequence? Then, re-iterate the lower skeleton with a refined F3-F4 position as a means to converge towards the CM3 goal?

Right, that's how I learned it from Bill Bremmers webpage.First guess F3A3, then find C#4 to make the M3's progressive,and if after setting C#4 you find F4A4 doesn't fit adjust F3/4, and often that's it, unless F3/4 was off too much to begin with, then C#4 needs another iteration etc.

Main practical difficulty (at least for me) is judging that the M3's are in fact geometrically progressing, and esp. F4A4 is difficult to judge as it beats so fast.

Right, that's how I learned it from Bill Bremmers webpage.First guess F3A3, then find C#4 to make the M3's progressive,and if after setting C#4 you find F4A4 doesn't fit adjust F3/4, and often that's it, unless F3/4 was off too much to begin with, then C#4 needs another iteration etc.

Main practical difficulty (at least for me) is judging that the M3's are in fact geometrically progressing, and esp. F4A4 is difficult to judge as it beats so fast.

Mark, geometric progression means that the beat rate ratio of A3C#4 and F3A3 is the same as the beat rate ratio of C#4F4 and A3C#4 and the same as the beat rate ratio of F4A4 and C#4F4.Zero error when F3A3=6.9, look closer.

Kees

So maintaining ratios is not accurate. I will create a skeleton, making the speed differences equal as far as my ear can tell, and measure them in Audacity. We will see what it is. What is the correct ratio? Log? What base? Are you considering iH?

No. It is what I see in the second graph where a large change in F3A3 bps corresponds to a smaller change in A3C#3 bps. It is also what I believe you demonstrated in your video with the paper markings lining up the way they do.

No. Look at the scales of the axes. F3A3 can vary all the way from 4 bps to 10 bps, and still, C#4 will be off (flat) by no more than 1 cent. The point is: if F3, A3, F4 and A4 are placed with any modicum of accuracy, then C#4 will be very accurate.

Regarding maintaining ratios, and the degree of accuracy in doing so, we've had this discussion before. Doel commented that one of his problems is not to recognize increasing beat speeds, but to get the differences / ratios the same. I did some quick sums.

Assuming that the M3 beatrate doubles from F3A3 to F4A4, then each subsequent beatrate should increase by the third root of two, which is about 1.26 (classically called "5/4"). Looking at the numbers, using 7 bps for simplicity's sake, a geometric progression would be (rounded to one decimal point):78.811.114While an arithmetic progression would be:79.311.714

Is the difference between the two really significant?

At A3C#4, the two methods give a 0.5 bps difference at the common partial, which is C#6, i.e. 1109Hz. In that range, 1Hz is less than2 cents, i.e. the 0.5 bps difference is an error of less than 1 cent.

Similarly, at C#4F4, the two methods give a 0.6 bps difference at the common partial, which is F6, i.e. 1397Hz. In that range, 1 Hz is not much more than 1 cent, i.e. the 0.6 bps difference is once again an error of less than 1 cent.

So, I submit that the question of geometric (correct) vs. arithmetic (technically wrong) is somewhat academic. "Evenly" progressive, whether geometric or arithmetic, appears to be good enough.

My problem is, much like Kees's, that I can't readily distinguish the above two progressions from, for example,71012.514This sequence would have errors larger than 1 cent.

[quote=Mark R.]So, I submit that the question of geometric (correct) vs. arithmetic (technically wrong) is somewhat academic. "Evenly" progressive, whether geometric or arithmetic, appears to be good enough.[/quote]Yes, the difference is too small to be of any practical significance; a small enough segment of an exponential (or log) will be almost a straight line segment.

Funny thing I thought of: In theory (probably not in practice) you could find the correct F3 using [b]only[/b] the upper skeleton (i.e., without using F4A4) by finding the F3 that allows the sharpest C#4 within a progressive F3A3C#4F4 set.

[quote=Mark Cerisano, RPT][quote=DoelKees]Mark, geometric progression means that the beat rate ratio of A3C#4 and F3A3 is the same as the beat rate ratio of C#4F4 and A3C#4 and the same as the beat rate ratio of F4A4 and C#4F4.Zero error when F3A3=6.9, look closer.

Kees [/quote]

So maintaining ratios is not accurate. I will create a skeleton, making the speed differences equal as far as my ear can tell, and measure them in Audacity. We will see what it is. What is the correct ratio? Log? What base? Are you considering iH? [/quote]

Sorry Mark, but I mostly have no idea what you are trying to say/ask (also "Maintaining ratios?" comment).

I calculated with no IH, but the results for the sensitivity of C#4 to F3 should not depend on it in any significant way.

No. It is what I see in the second graph where a large change in F3A3 bps corresponds to a smaller change in A3C#3 bps. It is also what I believe you demonstrated in your video with the paper markings lining up the way they do.

Ok. I read (past tense) it as "when the F3 error is big, the C#4 errors decreases". Right. I see. When the F3 error increases, the C#4 error increases less.

Mark posts a video claiming you can set C#4 even if F3 is off, purely based on experience (I assume).

Rafael gets upset and claims "wrong if F3A3 is at 11bps you get more than 1 cent error in C#4".

Theory confirms both are right, but it is a fact that the error in C#4, when set from an erroneous F3 is much less than the error in F3.

Chris then points out the the upper skeleton can use the same method to set F4 more accurately using the same principle (C#4 if off by a little, but applying the same method to the upper skeleton results in the error of F4 to be much less than the error in C#4).

If only we could really tell if a beat rate progression was evenly geometrically progressing we could all tune a perfect ET.

As a digression note that if F3A3 beats at around 8.5bps it is possible to make the 3 M3's F3A3C#4F4 all equal beating, which results in a peculiar unequal (pseudo reverse well) temperament with C#major the best, A major next, and F major the worst key.

Mark, geometric progression means that the beat rate ratio of A3C#4 and F3A3 is the same as the beat rate ratio of C#4F4 and A3C#4 and the same as the beat rate ratio of F4A4 and C#4F4.Zero error when F3A3=6.9, look closer.

Kees

So maintaining ratios is not accurate. I will create a skeleton, making the speed differences equal as far as my ear can tell, and measure them in Audacity. We will see what it is. What is the correct ratio? Log? What base? Are you considering iH?

Sorry Mark, but I mostly have no idea what you are trying to say/ask (also "Maintaining ratios?" comment).

I calculated with no IH, but the results for the sensitivity of C#4 to F3 should not depend on it in any significant way.

Kees

When calculating the error, what did you use as the reference? A log ratio? Or something else?

When I tune and measure my skeleton, I want to calculate the error. I was thinking of using Tunelab and measuring the skeleton notes and creating the stretch curve with that.

If only we could really tell if a beat rate progression was evenly geometrically progressing we could all tune a perfect ET.

We can try.

First, use RBI as much as possible. Not just setting them approximately, but bisecting windows with the idea that you need to fit three more M3 into the CM3 window, for example, so there needs to be daylight in each CM3. This will serve to train the ear and improve beat speed difference recognition.

Mark, geometric progression means that the beat rate ratio of A3C#4 and F3A3 is the same as the beat rate ratio of C#4F4 and A3C#4 and the same as the beat rate ratio of F4A4 and C#4F4.Zero error when F3A3=6.9, look closer.

Kees

So maintaining ratios is not accurate. I will create a skeleton, making the speed differences equal as far as my ear can tell, and measure them in Audacity. We will see what it is. What is the correct ratio? Log? What base? Are you considering iH?

Sorry Mark, but I mostly have no idea what you are trying to say/ask (also "Maintaining ratios?" comment).

I calculated with no IH, but the results for the sensitivity of C#4 to F3 should not depend on it in any significant way.

Kees

When calculating the error, what did you use as the reference? A log ratio? Or something else?

Very simple. Without IH the correct C#4 is 220*2^(1/3). I report error wrt that in cents.

As a digression note that if F3A3 beats at around 8.5bps it is possible to make the 3 M3's F3A3C#4F4 all equal beating...Kees

Interesting digression...

Kees, I'd be curious to know what the beat speed would be if one tuned C#3/F3 - F3/A3 - A3/C#4 to all be equal beating contiguous major thirds, bracketed into a ~6:3 C#3/C#4 octave. (Because I believe that's one of the starting points of the Jack Stebbins method).

As a digression note that if F3A3 beats at around 8.5bps it is possible to make the 3 M3's F3A3C#4F4 all equal beating...Kees

Interesting digression...

Kees, I'd be curious to know what the beat speed would be if one tuned C#3/F3 - F3/A3 - A3/C#4 to all be equal beating contiguous major thirds, bracketed into a ~6:3 C#3/C#4 octave. (Because I believe that's one of the starting points of the Jack Stebbins method).

Chris, I think that would depend on the IH of the specific piano. So without knowing the scale and IH of the specific piano it would be meaningless to answer your question.

As a digression note that if F3A3 beats at around 8.5bps it is possible to make the 3 M3's F3A3C#4F4 all equal beating, which results in a peculiar unequal (pseudo reverse well) temperament with C#major the best, A major next, and F major the worst key.

Kees

I disagree. If the rules are to have equal beating 3 M3's F3A3C#4F4, and all other M3rds in the octave equal beating, then there is an infinite number of varying results.

As a digression note that if F3A3 beats at around 8.5bps it is possible to make the 3 M3's F3A3C#4F4 all equal beating...Kees

Interesting digression...

Kees, I'd be curious to know what the beat speed would be if one tuned C#3/F3 - F3/A3 - A3/C#4 to all be equal beating contiguous major thirds, bracketed into a ~6:3 C#3/C#4 octave. (Because I believe that's one of the starting points of the Jack Stebbins method).

As a digression note that if F3A3 beats at around 8.5bps it is possible to make the 3 M3's F3A3C#4F4 all equal beating, which results in a peculiar unequal (pseudo reverse well) temperament with C#major the best, A major next, and F major the worst key.

Kees

I disagree. If the rules are to have equal beating 3 M3's F3A3C#4F4, and all other M3rds in the octave equal beating, then there is an infinite number of varying results.

Well I was thinking of filling up the M3's with equal P5/4's but you are right you can do infinitely many other things.